Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Pro Business Discussion => Topic started by: Graham Mitchell on July 07, 2011, 03:10:40 pm
-
Tineye has been out for a while now and Google just released their reverse image search engine a few weeks ago. If you have not tried it already, go to the standard Google image search window, and try dragging a jpeg into the search field. Or try Tineye. Even better, use both.
With this technology, we can find unauthorised use of images, and do something about it. I have found more than 100 instances of my images being used without permission. Most of the transgressors will remove the image once you write to them, and if they don't just write to the ISP hosting the site - they will do it for you.
By clamping down on the freeloaders, we will all send out a message that photos aren't free, and that photographers need to be paid for their work, which is a positive step forward for the whole industry.
I blogged about it here too: http://www.graham-mitchell.com/blog/?p=294
-
I'll be damned, google's results are much more thorough than Tineye. Just a few searches and my images have been used on a personal blog (http://amandafl.blogg.no/1281669534_mitt_siste_innlegg_fr.html), by a band (http://247nola.com/?page_id=6), whatever this (http://janasarokar.com/) is, and several other sites I don't want to give any google-fu to. Seems that there's not too much money, if any, involved; taking any action is more of a hassle than it's worth.
What I'm waiting for is for google to enable face detection on their image search. They already have it in Picasa, so it's only a matter of time. There are going to be a lot of embarrassed people whose names are all of a sudden linked to all kinds of embarrassing images.
-
Seems that there's not too much money, if any, involved; taking any action is more of a hassle than it's worth.
If by action you mean legal action, then I agree, but taking a minute to get the image removed is worth doing. We need to change the perception that photos are free for the taking.
-
Just for interest I did a Google image search for 4 images that I have posted on LuLa. The images are linked from my blogs which are Google supported and also link to Google's Picasa Web Albums. Thus the images should be in three places, two of them supported by Google.
My image search found just 1 of my images and that was on my blog. One out of 12 possible images isn't great.
I searched for another 8 (24 possible images ) and found 1 more from my blog.
The Google image search is far from perfect but hey it's free and it is a start.
It's good to see you are finding infringements and also sad that people continue to breach copyright.
Cheers,
-
There were three other posts by the time I posted my reply. One reminded me that I had a screen grab for an image of the Sydney Harbour Bridge search. This is one of most photographed places in Australia. A Google image search for Sydney Harbour Bridge got 1 480 000 hits. Here' a screen grab of my search:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aVcpwdYduzQ/ThYjbv2xXeI/AAAAAAAAA98/qgB_-MqCJfk/s1600/SHB.jpg)
Cheers,
-
What we need is this inside lightroom. Searching 1 at a time is almost useless.
-
thanks for posting, this looks great but I cant get it to work for me. can you explain the literal steps I need to do?
-
Graham, thanks for posting...how do you find out the ISP hosting company to contact if my images have been lifted and my copyrights are being infringed? Thanks!
-
What we need is this inside lightroom. Searching 1 at a time is almost useless.
Awesome idea...
-
There were three other posts by the time I posted my reply. One reminded me that I had a screen grab for an image of the Sydney Harbour Bridge search. This is one of most photographed places in Australia. A Google image search for Sydney Harbour Bridge got 1 480 000 hits....
Tom, I did not get the point of this post. Was that your image of the bridge?
-
Holy crap!
I did play with Tin Eye or something similar in the past , but never found anything. This time, Google found several instances of unauthorized use. The first one was used as the main illustration on the subject in Wikipedia: (Bass Harbor Head Lighthouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bass_Harbor_Head_Light)). Clicking on the image contains another surprise: the image license is listed as:
"This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons... Commons is a freely licensed media file repository...You are free:
to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to remix – to adapt the work..."
What!? WTF!? I never gave my permission for this!?
It then continues:
"... This image, which was originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on November 29, 2010 by the administrator or reviewer File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske), who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the above license on that date..."
Thanks Magnus, buddy! You are the man! My images on Flickr were clearly labeled (by Flickr), from day one, as: "License: © All rights reserved by Slobodan Blagojevic" How our "friend" Magnus "confirmed" they are free, is beyond me. Furthermore, my files are available for download in all sizes, including the original, in spite of the fact that my Flickr Preferences are set, again from day one, to have original sizes downloadable only by me. Looks like I have not only Mr. Manske to "thank" for the steal, but Flickr as well.
What then follows is a wild-goose chase: clicking on Magnus' link, this is what he has to say:
"I (Magnus Manske), personally, do not (or rarely) upload pictures through this bot. It is part of my CommonsHelper and Flickr2Commons tools.
If some image with questionable copyright was uploaded, don't come to me. I (most likely) didn't upload it, and I don't know any more about it than you do. If it's evil, just nuke it..."
"Just nuke it"!? What is that supposed to mean!? I would rather "nuke" you, buddy! You set your bot's algorithm to pick images that are clearly designated as "all rights reserved".
Once it is free for all to use, no wander there are those who will: a New England travel (http://www.travel-new-england.com/2011/03/bass-harbor-head-light-bass-harbor-maine/) site (with nothing but an email address to contact, with no idea who is behind the site), where they attributed the image to "creative commons". And, yes, of course, another site appropriately named "free pictures of everything on earth (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images.ookaboo.com/photo/s/Acadia_NP_Bass_Harbor_Light_s.jpg&imgrefurl=http://ookaboo.com/o/pictures/topic/273759/Bass_Harbor_Head_Light&usg=__2FIMz779X1WwzQt4uZfSsyF3q9g=&h=240&w=160&sz=17&hl=en&start=1&sig2=1JDz7WhpLhM3vufuEnvCOw&zoom=1&tbnid=2LFmXNKn6XyENM:&tbnh=140&tbnw=93&ei=Yy4WTqWdGIeCsgKGwfgr&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dbass%2Bharbor%2Bhead%2Blighthouse%26hl%3Den%26gbv%3D2%26biw%3D1434%26bih%3D1084%26tbs%3Dsimg:CAQSURpPCxCwjKcIGjMKMQgBEgsSuwFBDzC3AS9IRhogtvw1mGmChyeBkMd_1xXhmjOeV_1lmKR4loptbnt3m69loMCxCOrv4IGgoKCAgBEgQtvu0tDA%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=187&vpy=129&dur=2764&hovh=192&hovw=128&tx=68&ty=104&page=1&ved=1t:722,r:0,s:0)". Duh! As a special touch, on this site, they attributed it to our "dear friend" Magnus Manske!
And if this is not enough to curl up and cry, wait till you try to figure out how to delete your "free" pictures on Wikimedia (the apparent source of all this "free" distribution). Get ready to get a four-year college degree parsing through their terms and instructions.
Does anybody know how to deal with Wikimedia, and other creatures mentioned above?
-
Does anybody know how to deal with Wikimedia, and other creatures mentioned above?
See the Commons:Contact us (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Contact_us) page, specifically the third bullet under “Content and copyrights” regarding contacting them about copyright infringement.
BTW, it looks to me like it was actually somebody else who originally stole the image. Note the “source” link, which says Wikimedia got it from http://www.flickr.com/photos/sierraclub/4380313360/ which is no longer there, but that's apparently who had uploaded it and marked it as available for use, misleading the Wikimedia folks.
-
What we need is this inside lightroom. Searching 1 at a time is almost useless.
Yes, either automation or even better - once you add an image to your google profile, you could receive a notification every time it finds a new occurence.
-
thanks for posting, this looks great but I cant get it to work for me. can you explain the literal steps I need to do?
Go to the Google image search page. If you see a small camera icon on the right side of the search field, then you are ready to go. Just drag an image over the search field. You can also search for the URL of an image and you will get a prompt asking if you want to search by image.
-
Graham, thanks for posting...how do you find out the ISP hosting company to contact if my images have been lifted and my copyrights are being infringed? Thanks!
With most blogs it is obvious, as the blog will be hosted on a domain such as wordpress.com
Otherwise, go to http://www.whois.net and enter the domain name.
You should retrieve a record that looks a bit like this:
Registrant:
Radical Talent Services, Inc.
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: BLOGMAVERICK.COM
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.WORDPRESS.COM
NS2.WORDPRESS.COM
NS3.WORDPRESS.COM
Some take more detective work than others.
-
Go to the Google image search page. If you see a small camera icon on the right side of the search field, then you are ready to go. Just drag an image over the search field...
Dragging does not always work. The camera icon might be grayed out, in which case you click on it first and then it will open a dialog box, where you will have an option to upload your image:
-
I'm using googles analytics with an optional tracker for more detail on my website. Some time ago I remember something from them saying they're working on a feature you can add to your site which keeps track of the images on that site..
I looked for it and can't find it. As I've been moving and my life has been helter skelter for the last few months I'm not surprised. Anyone else receive this email and if so can you share it? I've looked over on their analytics site and can't find anything.
But I think the person who mentioned this should be in LR is onto something. A plug-in that allows background scanning would be ideal, with some sort of database/directory to store/organize the results. And hey, build it to catch the offending sites contact information and give you the option to auto-generate email and I'm sold.. worth a lot to me.
I've already broached this with the DNN God's for my site's platform.. they weren't enthusiastic..
-
Tom, I did not get the point of this post. Was that your image of the bridge?
Slobodan, the top image is of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and is what I was trying to find matches to. The ten images below are what Google thought were matches, they were not even close. Out of over one and a half million named images of the bridge plus other unnamed images there was no image of the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
Obviously Graham has had luck in finding unauthorised use of his images. In my basic test I was lucky to find two out of twelve images on a Google hosted website. The sample I showed had me scratching my head, three ducks crossing a bridge is a match for the Sydney Harbour Bridge. There is a long way to go…
-
Slobodan, the top image is of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and is what I was trying to find matches to. The ten images below are what Google thought were matches, they were not even close. Out of over one and a half million named images of the bridge plus other unnamed images there was no image of the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
Obviously Graham has had luck in finding unauthorised use of his images. In my basic test I was lucky to find two out of twelve images on a Google hosted website. The sample I showed had me scratching my head, three ducks crossing a bridge is a match for the Sydney Harbour Bridge. There is a long way to go…
Tom, the Google results are split into two types: direct matches and similar matches. For your particular image, there were no direct matches found, so you only saw the similar matches section. Normally you would see a list of exact matches first.
-
I hope they develop and integrate this type of reverse searching into Lightroom.
Just a quick search on one of my images has yielded a few pages of people ripping it off - some of them I have no idea what they are even using my photograph for since the websites are in chinese...but a couple of examples:
http://www.alltrip.cn/destination/viewnews1629409.html
http://bbs.yhcgo.com/read.php?tid-107290.html
How do you translate: 'Dear Scumbag, please stop using my photographs without paying for them' ;D
-
... How do you translate: 'Dear Scumbag...
Do not know about scumbag, but try something like "Yu Stin Ki Pu..." :)
-
You know.. its one thing for someone to rip an image off and use it on a 'blog' or some personal website. Usually, its flattering to have ones photographs ripped off in this way and almost always there is nothing the offender is trying to gain financially out of it. They usually just like the photograph and will often at least credit the photographer. Its not 'right' to take a photograph and use it like this (without contacting, seeking permission and crediting the photographer), but its not the crime of the century either.
However, when its a commercial entity seeking to use the photograph to generate revenue its a different story and these are the ones that really get under my skin. The ability to reverse search with google has just shown up two examples to me of overseas travel companies using my photographs to promote destinations in the hopes people will book with them. Now this really pisses me off.
I was enjoying a saturday morning coffee in quite a good mood and now I have to think about contacting my lawyer and taking some kind of action.
I hope google develop this search engine capability further and again, I hope Adobe integrate this type of facility into Lightroom. As it stands its very slow to search image by image.
Edit.. LOL Further searching reveals these guys even have the cheek to remove my copyright logo and put their own on it! LINK (http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&u=http://forum.kaiyuan.de/forum.php%3Fmod%3Dviewthread%26tid%3D581444&ei=0qcXTryeFuGimQXJh_z-Dw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CGMQ7gEwCDgK&prev=/search%3Fstart%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1609%26bih%3D1063%26tbs%3Dsbi:AMhZZitl5oLHLLG-gvdEFlHTxuzpku51F2NIBh8mtnPOUB19Bh-MeOvPfPGGQQrNoZX7b-zBxkaIdaMGIdC1yQafcc4-4eiFU5Yy5-zQVCAJp1AtBLLr0r3DeVHxa-7TmBMP5dBNOhGP_1I62PZ3wDDIiD8cCP2aRDWU16xRElQ6Xc4HbjYPrDxt2get8TBZaWY2frv0b_1BANen_1B_19tA56u7LUQnKavb9_1-zraBdDf5gBawflpCJDkp1KZ7DGjbSUh04q8_1i-t2y4_1OVqQENvHaTqHMYIlODF1hZw2-7UyROzIj4cONZpTFrLoEY4DHGP5E1N-IKUoDZJo6V8R01hmodCIyB4YjpIAaIY98WznEm-EsRtb02oyew1eCZHXwJCkTzE-MAzxT8nJswtLmOpDAoZQYS7AgMnqYrQQgOYp3ykBgwANbgY-5ieFEV9y2GSdLxN5elfHlkv7FSUQanakuA3vRF8BYEwWHjcINEpJ40U9oqx0LzBhETmcxVaeRJkgDVZIWN340k2bMdukznL_1BY5N-bLCkN4tOBVXVe3ftio6G6OOm5jxgffK2EeKyHQvF8QyJcltEX2N6VwkA_174Fqpo3gpZeHsP9_1kUzrBIo96bFK0mZftAdIvxXJqvVgB-8JeSX121rHYtVUOg9BmQOrhI5ggKwld5-mSkVHGx9402tLQQKT7dFkkk0SasTNX_1lrRwcXhqkcP-R6da67L1jui4d7pUrF_1iE4AvSme6TtJNevY0ZTu4jbJ6sBCRYIBzcJki60m7Y92u2rderIHqpdbPXe7FDrBsAJVMC_1L6BlQOOAVymsxaRhwdWHOru9_13URxlisp5_1_1Kg-_1EKjARvb9Cx1jsApy7txl7TXHPWXDfuaBawnp143YY3jF8gzjzSq1xtMV-WwptrJKLDnzC3shW_1ikVsly-X-kEGPmREVhEJpew2QFYnCxSbxyULsGw32MOvNP5BTyCbx_1JmZnYItNyrASsqGrhJNwvNUDLKfGojUweWYFhvupc23VbA-7Nd7g2_1kne1tt16FErSnnNo5CBGwskrGG2LGMFRD1WjcXkvXqMwsGKLAXM5XmLjcmrRAsKpUIA3JVaxrr17TJCrrgfEwwODUzHB1WaM70D7W3-IukJa-wpFjO6eHX7Sw9JFKD-ze1SrErCunIFh9JG_1Bai5QoOAtSgmG1NfCamJ-KXrqdBdNcSoGtQH2BharZT2376chMtPqB91I3keBFwFJKPvbx7kGXPeH3DjLuPy0yLFEzsQ0sBhrVPW-NVxNpPUqsm7y_1cBCZeJgg9cOrhMiQrdVhK47hyQ%26prmd%3Divns) You can see on the left hand side where they have badly removed my copyright logo in photoshop *shakes head in disgust*
-
Great. Now I'm going to have to spend many hours exorting and searching. I'm finding my stuff up after just a few minutes of looking. This one, they didn't even bother to remove my watermark http://www.desktopwallpaperhd.com/wallpapers/cigar-world-content-uploads-1349.html (http://www.desktopwallpaperhd.com/wallpapers/cigar-world-content-uploads-1349.html)
-
Tom, the Google results are split into two types: direct matches and similar matches. For your particular image, there were no direct matches found, so you only saw the similar matches section. Normally you would see a list of exact matches first.
Graham, I was just pointing out how whack the similar images were. There must be at least 100 000 images of the Sydney Harbour Bridge that are very similar to my image and yet I got none.
I thought that the screen grab may give a few of you a laugh. I had a chuckle when I saw this search result of an earlier LuLa post. How the powerlines are similar to a car wheel and sandals bewilders me.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-F7eex7HmETE/ThfYEfJAGXI/AAAAAAAAA-E/RrlSBu99JW8/s1600/google.jpg)
Cheers,
-
It's amazing what you can find. I found a music video with nearly half a million views, which uses one of my photos. It won't be up much longer - just reported it to youtube.
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/youtubeinfringement.jpg)
-
Where are you all posting these high res images in the first place? Mine have been taken off my websites, but I suspect the fact that I only post low res anywhere on the internet may be helping me. Are some of you posting high res on Flickr or something?
-
Where are you all posting these high res images in the first place? Mine have been taken off my websites, but I suspect the fact that I only post low res anywhere on the internet may be helping me. Are some of you posting high res on Flickr or something?
Most of my stolen images are low res.
-
My lighthouse image has been rather quickly deleted from Wikimedia site (within 24 hours), including as illustration for the Wikipedia's entry for the Bass Harbor Head Lighthouse.
Steps I needed to take: register on Wikimedia/-pedia site (rather simple), upon which a menu appears on the left, with options to initiate deletion (the menu may take some time to appear though). Admins then review the request and delete the image.
The above, however, does not automatically delete the image on sites outside of Wikimedia. Those sites used Wikimedia as the free source, claiming Creative Commons License rights, yet in both cases failed to follow one of the two simple CCL requirements: to properly credit (attribute) the author/photographer. One site does mention photo credits, but in the following manner:
"Photo credits: The picture of Bass Harbor Head Light is from the Wikimedia Commons. It is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license."
The same site, however, has no problem posting "© Travel New England - All Rights Reserved" for their own site.
-
Tineye has been out for a while now and Google just released their reverse image search engine a few weeks ago. If you have not tried it already, go to the standard Google image search window, and try dragging a jpeg into the search field. Or try Tineye. Even better, use both.
With this technology, we can find unauthorised use of images, and do something about it. I have found more than 100 instances of my images being used without permission. Most of the transgressors will remove the image once you write to them, and if they don't just write to the ISP hosting the site - they will do it for you.
By clamping down on the freeloaders, we will all send out a message that photos aren't free, and that photographers need to be paid for their work, which is a positive step forward for the whole industry.
I blogged about it here too: http://www.graham-mitchell.com/blog/?p=294
Thanks!
I will try it out right now!
-
I've been playing with this Google feature since it's been out and find it entertaining and informative. I have 500-700 stock images sold for use on the web but could never discover how they were used until now. Great fun!
And I'm shocked, shocked, that someone would actually steal images from web sites!
-
There went my good spirits for the day....
I've played around with tineye before but never any luck.
Tried Googles new search, and found lots of my crap being used.
Luckily none of my serious work was found as it sucks, but rather all of my DIY/how to/BTS images were the ones used, ironically by supposed photographers on their blogs using my pics to show how they supposedly made/did something....arrgghhh
-
That'll be because your cheapskate micro-stock agency can't be arsed to tell you.
Why such shock when the micro-stock agencies and the deluded individuals who supply them with their fodder have managed to devalue images to the point of theft?
I'd hate to face the thousands of individuals who are making a living at micro-stock and call them "deluded". It's a business like any other. That it has morphed so quickly away from the traditional stock model is simply the laws of supply and demand flexing its muscle. Personally, I don't upload much to the micro-sites any more because I don't have to. But I do keep up with that segment news-wise and see lots of individuals coming into micro-stock with lots of talent. They post-date any perceived "golden age of stock" but understand that they can compete and make some decent money with creative economically-produced images. More power to them.
I'd also never expect a micro-stock agency to try to track image uses for my edification. It would certainly put additional work and cost upon them and their customers. The Google feature is a nice touch that, for me, satisfies my curiosity on how my images are being used.
I believe that the image theft issue has nothing to do with stock or micro-stock at all. Any image from any source is subject to theft. If it's on the internet it is vulnerable, water-mark or no water-mark.
-
I'd hate to face the thousands of individuals who are making a living at micro-stock and call them "deluded". It's a business like any other.
I disagree. In what other business do they majority run at a loss and pat themselves on the back at the same time?
-
I don't know the total number of micro-stock contributors. Istock photo says they have "tens of thousands". I'll assume that the other, say, big five sites also have tens of thousands of contributors. Add in the other 3 or 4 dozen sites and subtract out the duplicate folks and I think that there could easily be 70-90,000 contributors. It wouldn't be a stretch to believe a few thousand make living at it.
-
There are 39,740 registered members on Luminous Landscape including those making a living in a variety of genre such as fashion, architecture, wedding, sport, photo journalism, fine art, product, social, editorial...
It would be a stretch to believe that one of these members is "making a living at micro-stock"
Or perhaps you would care to point me to one?
And when he's finished doing that, he can bring in the dog and put out the cat!
I was active during the Golden Era and even I couldn't make a 'decent living' out of stock; at best, it made extra money from stuff already paid for via client work.
I spent a short while with a big Spanish agency too, and got, from them, perhaps the best stock advice ever: spend the minimum amount of money that you can! Too true! In a year, they sold one image of mine for around twelve quid! When I politely withdrew, they were indignant that I didn't want to spend more 'investment' money and time... the same people but yet another aspect of the two-sided coin. I think mine was the thin edge.
In retrospect, it seems to me that (for me) the only way for stock to work for the photographer is from the unused extras taken from originally commissioned work, in a rights-managed model and in a buoyant economy.
As for the Arcus model - I suppose that one in several million can raise a critical mass that self-perpetuates and morphs into profit. Have you guys the money to risk trying to build it?
Rob C
-
It can be sobering to search on a portrait of yourself.
-
There are 39,740 registered members on Luminous Landscape including those making a living in a variety of genre such as fashion, architecture, wedding, sport, photo journalism, fine art, product, social, editorial...
It would be a stretch to believe that a single one of these members is "making a living at micro-stock"
Or perhaps you would care to point me to one?
I think to try and say that no-one can make a living at microstock is like sticking your head in the sand. There are quite a few people who are doing just that. In the 2010 microstock survey (http://blog.microstockgroup.com/2010-microstock-industry-survey-first-look/) of 600+ users, 129 people were making over 50% of their income from microstock. 600 is a small % of the total population, but I think it is safe to say there is probably at least close to 1000 people earning a decent income from microstock.
-
of 600+ users, 129 people were making over 50% of their income from microstock.
Percentages are meaningless. How much are they actually making, for how many hours per year?
-
Percentages are meaningless. How much are they actually making, for how many hours per year?
I was just giving one stat. Did you look at the survey results?
-
BTW, what happened to the proposed real name policy?
Why the hell am I having this discussion with PorridgeFactory?
LOL!
You object to the Factory family naming their child Porridge? ;D
-
Hmm, where did I say that "no-one can make a living at micro-stock"? I know of one or two photographers who claim to do just that. The point is every time there's a discusion such as this the same one or two examples are quoted time and again. Where are all the others?
Again, you want figures, there are 39,000+ members in this particular photographic community, many of whom are represented on the micro-stock sites. Point me towards those here who are "earning their living at micro-stock".
Sorry I didn't realize I was supposed to use my real name. I guess I should have read the instructions better.
You had said
There are 39,740 registered members on Luminous Landscape including those making a living in a variety of genre such as fashion, architecture, wedding, sport, photo journalism, fine art, product, social, editorial...
It would be a stretch to believe that a single one of these members is "making a living at micro-stock"
I took the last sentence to mean that you didn't think anyone was earning a living at micro. I wrongfully expanded your supposition about 39,000+ photographers to include all photographers.
Regardless, I can hardly believe I am the first photographer to sign up on this forum who does earn the majority of their income from microstock.
-
BTW, TOlson, I believe you are misguided, but whatever, welcome.
misguided?
-
You object to the Factory family naming their child Porridge? ;D
No, I don't suppose he does, but it would be different if your name was Richard and your parents Mr & Mrs Head. Then you'd object.
Rob C
-
Ugh, I just did a test-search and it found my image on hundreds of blogs: Naturally not even one of the many sites I looked at credited me as the photographer. Fortunately I found no commercial uses, but I'm almost scared of searching on any of my other images.
-
Those who believe that photographers and photography are better served by the royalty free business model rather than the rights managed business model are misguided
Those who believe that photographers and photography are better served by the micro-stock business model rather than the rights managed business model are misguided.
Those who believe that there are anything like thousands earning their living from micro-stock are misguided.
Take your pick.
Misguided and loving it. Having a great time on microstock. Gives me enough money to live on, and more importantly, gives me the freedom to be whereever I want. Such a criminal industry... must be stopped! : D
-
Misguided and loving it. Having a great time on microstock. Gives me enough money to live on, and more importantly, gives me the freedom to be whereever I want. Such a criminal industry... must be stopped! : D
So convincing given that this is your first post on LL. Are you sure you don't work for iStock? (http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums/graemlins/roflmao.gif)
-
From face to face conversations with istock contributors, often a blank look comes over their face when discussing the 'true' costs involved in supplying images - camera equipment costs, maintenance and repairs, computer equipment, insurance, travel and subsistence costs, time spent transferring images from the camera to the computer, RAW processing, specific captions and important key-wording and finally time taken to upload images. Having travelled the world and run a library full time since 1993 all of these cost have to be taken into account - when I run my car for business use the full running costs include depreciation, not just the petrol.
The reason for the blank stare is that they're not pros, so those concerns are trivial to them. They would incur most of those costs anyway on their travels and upgrading their hobby equipment. Getting paid (a pittance) for stock is just a way for them to recoop some of the cost of their hobby.
I believe the only way for pros to survive is to not compete with hobbyists. This means leaving stock, for some it means leaving photography altogether.
-
I had a search to see who is making money from istockphoto and Lise Gagné's (http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=162596) name came up. With over 1100 000 downloads she must be doing something right.
In another search which I can't find again they did a survey of people doing microstock and the majority were making under $4000 a year.
Cheers,
-
I found the Link (http://rising.blackstar.com/lise-gagne-becomes-first-istockphoto-photographer-to-reach-500-000.html) about the survey. A quote from it:
"Nearly 60 percent of the 865 microstock photographers participating in the survey reported earning less than $1,000 per year."
I found this quote more disturbing though:
"Second, she is exclusive to iStock; she earns 40 percent of individual image sales, double that of nonexclusive photographers."
I thought galleries were greedy but this takes the cake.
Cheers,
PS The article links to a good blog: here Microstock Diaries (http://www.microstockdiaries.com/)